Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 98/2025 of 4 June 2025
Extraordinary appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality – Appeal rejected due to failure to indicate the value of the claim
In the present judgment, the Constitutional Court ruled on an extraordinary appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality against a decision of the Labour Chamber of the Luanda Court of Appeal, which had rejected the Appellant's appeal on the grounds of failure to indicate the value of the claim.
In summary, the Appellant argued that the Luanda Court of Appeal, by refusing to hear her appeal solely on the basis of the failure to indicate the value of the claim, had violated the right to appeal and the principles of legality, access to justice, effective judicial protection, and fair and equitable process.
The Constitutional Court began by recalling that the admissibility of an ordinary appeal depends, among other requirements, on the decision in question being susceptible to challenge, given that only decisions handed down in cases whose value exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of the Court from which the appeal is brought are subject to ordinary appeal. In the case at hand, the Appellant had not indicated the value of the claim, nor had it been determined by the Court of first instance.
The Constitutional Court clarified that where the petition does not contain an indication of the value, the claimant must be invited to remedy the irregularity, and the opposing party must be notified to challenge the declared value if it so wishes; only where the Judge considers that the value attributed is disproportionate in relation to the immediate economic utility of the claim may the Judge determine the value deemed appropriate.
In the Constitutional Court's view, the Court of first instance should have ensured the orderly progress of the proceedings, including the rectification of this omission. As regards the Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court considered that, rather than simply rejecting the appeal, it should have ordered the case file to be remitted to the Court of first instance so that the irregularity could be duly rectified.
The Constitutional Court further emphasised that the right to appeal is an essential guarantee of the Democratic Rule of Law, and that access to justice and effective judicial protection may only be validly excluded on the basis of an express legal provision. In the present case, the Court concluded that the rejection of the appeal constituted a joint violation of the constitutional guarantees of legality, effective judicial protection, the right to a fair trial in accordance with the law, and the right to appeal, and that the contested decision was therefore vitiated by unconstitutionality.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court upheld the appeal and ordered the case file to be remitted to the Court below, so that the irregularity relating to the indication of the value of the claim could be rectified.
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Luanda Court of Appeal No. 70/2025 of 24 September 2025
Reporting of an occupational accident and occupational disease – Acquittal of the insurer
The present judgment originated from a report of an occupational accident and occupational disease filed before the District Court of Belas, in the context of which the employee sought: payment of benefits for temporary absolute incapacity for her usual work, payment of a monthly life pension, payment of outstanding life pensions, reimbursement of travel expenses, treatments, examinations, and consultations, and the determination of a change of workstation or, alternatively, early retirement.
At first instance, the insurer was acquitted of all claims and the employer was acquitted of the claim for a change of workstation or early retirement, having been ordered to pay the remaining claims.
The employer lodged an appeal, alleging an incorrect assessment of the facts and application of the law by the Court, which had led to the acquittal of the insurer.
In essence, the employer raised the following legal issues on appeal:
- The failure to serve the insurer in the judicial proceedings.
The Luanda Court of Appeal rejected the argument, clarifying that, as the proceedings had commenced at the conciliation stage before the Public Prosecutor's Office, and as the insurer had participated in that stage, in the judicial stage it sufficed for a notification to be employed, as it was, without a new service of process being required.
- The fact that the obligation to report an occupational disease falls on the medical staff of the health services and not on the company.
The Court clarified that, although the medical and paramedical staff had a duty to report to the respective administration those cases in which the existence of occupational diseases was to be presumed, with the reports then being forwarded to the insurer and the competent provincial directorate, the employer had its own reporting duty. Furthermore, the Court also found that the employer had not proved the existence of a valid insurance contract at the date of the relevant facts, there being only a collection notice, which gave rise to a presumption that the appellant was in default of payment of the premium to the insurer, and that during the period of suspension for non-payment the insurer is not liable for any claim.
- The fact that the assessment of the injured employee's incapacity had been carried out by the Occupational Health and Safety Centre and not by the National Commission for the Assessment of Occupational Incapacities.
The Court rejected this argument, as it constituted a new matter not raised at first instance — further emphasising that it had been the employer itself that had referred the employee to that centre, which would even amount to a situation of venire contra factum proprium.
The Luanda Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the contested decision.
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Luanda Court of Appeal No. 26/2025 of 7 May 2025
Appeal pleadings – Burden of pleading
The judgment in question was delivered in the context of a disciplinary appeal action brought before the Labour Division of the District Court of Belas. By way of a preliminary ruling on the merits, the Court of first instance decided to uphold the disciplinary appeal and ordered the employer to compensate the employee. The employee, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and with the refusal to grant reinstatement, lodged an appeal before the Luanda Court of Appeal.
The Luanda Court of Appeal began by noting that the original submissions in the appeal lodged by the employee were scarce due to the absence of conclusions, and that the employee had been invited by the Court of first instance to rectify them.
The Court recalled that, pursuant to Article 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant is bound by the burden of pleading, which consists of the submission of a procedural document setting out the grounds for challenge and the reasons why the Appellant considers the decision to be erroneous, through arguments concerning the facts, the outcome of the evidence, and the interpretation and application of the law, in addition to specifying the objective sought to be achieved through the appeal; and by the burden of formulating conclusions, which requires a concise statement of the grounds of the appeal, briefly indicating the issues of fact and law that were incorrectly decided.
Upon examining the corrected submissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that the employee had merely reproduced the facts alleged in the initial petition, as though it were a new petition, concluding with a generic request for reinstatement or, in the alternative, a revision of the compensation.
The Court held that, at no point, had the Appellant identified a ground of nullity of the judgment, nor had he identified any error in the assessment of the evidence or in the application of the law, and concluded that the mere reproduction of requests in the conclusions, devoid of any impugnatory substance, has no legal value whatsoever, the defect being incurable.
Consequently, the Luanda Court of Appeal decided not to hear the appeal on the grounds that it lacked a proper object.
Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Luanda Court of Appeal No. 08/2025 of 26 March 2025
Disciplinary dismissal – Defects in the disciplinary notice
The present appeal took place in the context of an action challenging a disciplinary dismissal brought before the District Court of Cabinda.
At first instance, the Court held that the disciplinary proceedings that had been instituted were vitiated by defects, since the disciplinary notice did not contain a detailed description of the facts attributed to the employee, constituting a merely abstract and generic accusation, which rendered the disciplinary measure null and void.
The employer lodged an appeal.
The Luanda Court of Appeal invoked the provisions of the General Labour Law, which requires the disciplinary notice to include a detailed description of the facts attributable to the employee, and cited case law of the Supreme Court according to which the description of the facts must be circumstantiated, a generic and imprecise indication of the conduct attributed to the employee being insufficient, it being necessary to set out in concrete terms the facts in which such conduct consisted, as well as the circumstances of time and place in which it occurred.
Upon examining the disciplinary notice in the case at hand, the Court of Appeal concluded that expressions such as "having engaged in conduct over a period of one year (2015/2016)", "gradual misappropriation of fuel", and "such actions were carried out in collusion with other colleagues" do not amount to a detailed description of the facts, being vague, abstract, and generic. The Court considered that it was necessary to identify not only the period, but also the specific days, weeks, or months during which the alleged theft occurred, so as to enable the employee to prepare an effective defence and, moreover, to allow for the assessment of the limitation period for the disciplinary infraction. It likewise held that it was imperative to identify who the other colleagues involved were, who benefited from the the infraction, and the amount of fuel misappropriated.
The Court further noted that, even if the disciplinary notice were to be regarded as containing a detailed description, the disciplinary measure would nonetheless be null and void on a separate ground: the disciplinary interview took place only three days after the notice was delivered to the employee, whereas the settled case law of the Supreme Court establishes a minimum reasonable period of five days between the delivery of the notice and the holding of the interview, failing which there is a violation of the right to be heard and a limitation of the right of defence.
The Luanda Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and, consequently, upheld the contested decision in its entirety.
